Talk:Type VII submarine

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

That's of no help whatsoever in identifying which of the many different "tons" is used in this particular article—and that's my point: they should be identified here.Gene Nygaard 17:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not what you asked. Why do you think that the word "ton" should be defined on, out of the tens of thousands of articles that use the word, the Type VII U-boat page? ➥the Epopt 20:02, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be defined. It needs to be 'identified. Are those short tons, long tons, metric tons, whatever? The tons used on most Wikipedia pages are in fact identified (and on many pages, the numbers are converted so that a couple of different tons are identified, or sometimes kilograms, megagrams, teragrams, etc. are used for the metric conversions, or sometimes pounds to avoid the short/long ton problems with English units), though there are still far too many like this one where they are not. Gene Nygaard 21:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As this is a German boat, you can safely assume that the ton mentioned is really a metric ton, or tonne. Which is in fact very close to long ton (being 1016 kilograms), so if accuracy isn't of great importance, they can be used interchangeably. Khathi 16:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that most Wikipedia ship articles suffer from this problem of not identifying what kind of ton is meant. One can guess that long tons are meant in articles from US and British sources, and metric tons in articles from European sources, but it would be better to identify which is meant. Perhaps you could write a paragraph on Wikipedia:WPSHIPS giving some guidance in this area? Gdr 11:58, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

I deleted "total 915 tons". I've never heard "total tons" in ref a sub. If it's surfaced full load, say so. (I'd question that, too; the typically quoted number is around 750.) Might also clarify if it's standard tons, perLondon Naval Conference measurements (as often used in American sources), or a typical German figure. Trekphiler 11:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of the introduction of Metox ("Biscay Cross") radar warning reciever. Also, it occurs to me it might be worth mentioning the TT are 55cm. Trekphiler 11:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the crush depth values, which is the depth at which a Type VII would most likely be crushed. This was not an exact value but depended from boat to boat. The data comes from a good source, a former (lady) spy of the French resisitance which I knew very well. Meswiss.

You've got to be kidding. Hearsay from an anonymous source is completely unreliable and unacceptable. It is exactly equivalent to something you made up because you thought it sounds cool. ➥the Epopt 17:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"According to German sources only two aircraft had been shot down by U-flaks in six missions (three by U-441, one each by U-256, U-621, and U-953)." - Can anyone clear this up? --Bryson 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense as long as the sentence inside the paranthesis refers to the numbers of MISSIONS, not the numbers of kills...Andrimner (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved all the general characteristics to the infobox, but looking at it it kinda skews the whole article layout - maybe it's better to keep a minimalistic infobox instead? Maybe just list the characteristics of the VIIC or something in the infobox? Anywho, if somebody decides the article looks worse now, feel free to revert back to a previous version - or tell me how you want it and I'll change it. Abel29a 14:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be better to have a minimalistic infobox or at least with specs of only the main type. All others may be comapred via a table in the text area. --Denniss 15:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree - I'm gonna revert the infobox back to just containing the VIIC data, seeing as this was the most numerable of them. Good idea about having a comparable table - makes the information much more accesible. Abel29a 17:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw its already been done :) Good work and it looks much better. Abel29a 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The entry about the Type VII's gun links to the 88mm AA / AT gun. However, the gun used on Type VII was a completely different gun, and the two guns had nothing in common except the diameter. They even used different types of ammunition. Removed the link. Ulsterman 18:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

a longer version of the VIIC with three banks of five vertical tubes just aft of the conning tower

. I think that might be confusing. I would rather write that there were

five vertical shafts, with three mines each

. The problem with the word tube, is that it sounds like a torpedo tube. Also, the 3 banks, implies there were 15 tubes total, when I think the original author was trying to explain there were three mines in each shaft.

I'm not an expert on U-boats, so I do not want to edit the original article. Perhaps someone who knows more could check my assertion and put in any corrections as necessary. Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.26 (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the conversion in the infobox from LT->t to t->LT. German measurements are metric and so are the figures given in most publications. Strangely there are other figures floating around (761 surfaced and 865 submerged respectively) which do not make any sense to me as they do not seem to correspond to long tons or metric tons either, the only two units for warships used to my knowledge. --FJS15 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The source given in the infobox is uboat.net and on the page, (despite the use of comma for decimal point) it says "tons" not "tonnes" (or an ambiguous "t"). At the time displacement was measured in long tons for the various treaties and comprison between navies, so I would say it's less than clear cut. Ask at WP:ships or WP:milhist - somone will have access to a more reliable source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Washington Naval Treaty uses two units, tons (long tons that is) and metric tons (1.016 long tons). The German navy always used metric tons or cubic meters. So, unless otherwise stated the figures taken from German records are in metric rather than long tons. --FJS15 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. Möller/Brack (2004): The Encyclopedia of U-boats.ISBN1-85367-623-3, uses tonnes. But this is hardly about spelling. --FJS15 (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling is important - to make meaning clear, for 1,000 kg you need to write either "metric tons" or "tonnes". The problem is that the source is not clear. I'll ask on the projects, there will be clearer ones than uboat.net. Actually the whole article is over reliant on the one source. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Parsecboy came up with source that does confirm the uboat.net values as tonnes and I've added it to the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The submarine is easily visible at Google Earth coordinates: 54 24' 45"N 10 13' 44"E . I don't know how to put those coordinates into the main page to make them map-clickable. 58.168.52.243 (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have just modified one external link on German Type VII submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Hi, I'm thinking of turning this file Commons:file:SRH009-p58.jpg into a svg one. My problem is that the quality of the file is bad, I have found one that is bigger but it's still very hard to see all the details.
So my questions is;
- Do anyone here know of a better source image?
- If we can't find a better source image, does anyone here have the detail knowledge and can help me correcting my drafts?
Please ping me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The "inflation adjusted" figures are nonsense. They don't take account that a dollar today buys technical sophistication undreamt of in the '40s, nor do they take account that wage rates have also changed, so much that a month's pay then wouldn't buy as much as a month's now, even in constant dollars. In short, the number is misleading, not just uninformative, & WP standard or no, shouldn't be used. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 05:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)